MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006755509 · doi:10.1177/8755293019900779

Forensic PSHA: Benchmarking Canada’s Fifth Generation seismic hazard model using the OpenQuake‐engine

2020· article· en· W3006755509 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trevor I. Allen, S Halchuk, J Adams, Graeme Weatherill

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardBenchmarkingGround motionEngineeringSeismic hazardScale (ratio)SoftwareProcess (computing)Forensic engineeringSeismologyCivil engineeringGeologyComputer scienceGeographyStructural engineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the implementation of the Natural Resources Canada’s Fifth Generation national seismic hazard model as developed for the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), within the OpenQuake‐engine. It also describes the reconciliation of the differences in hazard estimates relative to the published NBCC values, calculated using GSCFRISK. Source and ground‐motion input models developed for the GSCFRISK software were translated to the OpenQuake‐engine format for the hazard comparison. In order to successfully undertake this process, several adjustments to the OpenQuake code were needed to mimic the behavior of GSCFRISK. This required the development of new functions for earthquake‐rupture scaling and ground‐motion interpolation. Hazard values estimated using the OpenQuake‐engine are generally in good agreement with the 2015 NBCC national‐scale hazard values, with differences less than 2%–3% typically achieved. Where larger differences arise, they can be rationalized in terms of differences between the behaviors of the two software engines with respect to earthquake‐rupture length uncertainty and maximum ground‐motion integration distance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207